Frank Gaffney ably answers a question from an Al-Jazeera reporter about why anyone would think Shariah finance was anything but innocuous, at yesterday's Coalition to Stop Shariah press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Frank Gaffney ably answers a question from an Al-Jazeera reporter about why anyone would think Shariah finance was anything but innocuous, at yesterday's Coalition to Stop Shariah press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Excellent summary of why anything having to do with Shariah, in this case its financial dimensions, should be utterly resisted. Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer and a third gentleman I could not identify did a great job pointing out many of the indivious aspects of Islamic religious law. I have to wonder, though, how many in the US government and elsewhere will heed these informed warnings.
Wish you wouldn't disable comments at youtube :(.
Who was that third dude?
Goob
I didn't, and wouldn't have. That was done by the people who put up these videos.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The third speaker was Warren Manison from the Unity Coalition for Israel.
Cheers,
Dave
Center for Security Policy
Frank Gaffney's great. Thanks to KSFO AM radio, San Francisco, I've heard his knowledge and wisdom many times...
Lets get straight down to brass tacks shall we?
If we remove the following:
- Arguments resorting to the fallacy of the slippery slope (thin wedge, camel's nose etc..)
- Vague pronouncements about Islam being evil and then concluding that anything with the term "Islamic" in front of it must therefore also be evil
- Vague appeals to some sort of misplaced, xenophobic patriotism and 'defending our way of life'
Can you still provide an argument that Sharia-Based-Finance is
- Unconstitutional (please include section number)
- Illegal
- Unethical
If so, I'd be interested in reading such an argument.
(I understand Mr. Fitzgerald has written a follow-up to this issue and will be discussing this issue there as well).
Monte Gardner
Leaving aside your viciously unfair and inaccurate characterization of Frank's words here, try this:
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/18-headline-item/518-shariah-compliant-finance-jihad-with-money
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr. Spencer.
Thank you for the response. I believe my words do, in fact, describe much of the writing of Hugh Fitzgerald. Am I supposed to believe that since some of Sharia is contrary to democracy, anything with the word "Sharia" in front of it is therefore dangerous. This is not logical.
Lets try an exercise in grammar -
If we acknowledge that "Carbon Monoxide poisoning" is dangerous should we then conclude that we should experience a sense of dread when confronted with "Carbon Pencils" or "Carbon copies", or "Carbon-Based lifeforms"
.. I could go on but I think you get the point?
You yourself have cried foul when others have used similar tactics against you. Yet here we are using the same scare tactics: "Sharia! - Boo!", "Beheadings-Boo!", "Jizya - Boo!". Can't we discuss the matter at hand (that's Islamic Finance by the way) without resorting to scare tactics, guilt by association, and slippery slope fallacies?
I watched the video. 98% of it was just what I described above - scare tactics that don't stand the test of reason. There's one point that the speaker made which bears some discussion. If we allow this institution to continue to grow, theres a chance that it may provide a sort of safe-haven for terrorist financing. Muslim nations and groups have, all to often, not been cooperative in pursuing counter-terrorism investigations. If these banks or institutions are to be run by Muslims, then there's a chance that we will have a more difficult time freezing/investigating the funds of suspected terrorist groups. One of the most effective things President Bush did against al-queda and etc. was to prevent the flow of money into their hands. This is a reasonable concern.
Thus, there needs to be a discussion of what the rules are for investigating and, if neccessary, freezing the funds in certain accounts, and how these rules will apply to Islamic-centered institutions. There needs to be some understanding of oversight to make sure that these funds are not 'dissapearing down the rabbit-hole' so to speak. Until such a discussion happens at a high level and such oversight is established, I am opposed to the continued acceptance of Sharia-Finance.
Monte Gardner:
Certainly. Neither Frank nor I are employing any of those things.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Monte
I'm not a finance or business major, but just tossing interest free banking in my mind itself creates major questions. Like say a bank were to offer its Muslim customers interest free loans (and investments), wouldn't it be doing the following:
1. Allowing Muslims to borrow money either free of charge, or with a fixed charge, as opposed to the interest that would grow with the length of time the loan was in effect;
2. Since such deals would create obvious cash flow problems for the bank, since there would be too many customers happy to take loans with such terms but very few who'd want to deposit cash with such low returns, such a bank would alleviate its burden by charging normal, or even higher interest to those not participating in the above program i.e. Infidel customers.
3. As a result, what Infidels will be paying in terms of interests on loans, would be a disguised Jiziya to enable the bank service its Muslim customers without going into the red.
Don't you think this is this a correct interpretation of how such programs would work? Or do work? If this program is being conceived in the context of the current financial situation, how does it help things at all (other than Islamic cash flowing in, obviously with Islamic prayer beads attached?) That looks like the last thing our financial institutions should be doing to get a handle on their situations.
Also, anything with the word 'Shariah' in it is indeed a trojan horse, and not an innocuous instrument in itself (in this case financial): the converse argument of the one you're employing is the one that will ultimately be used. In other words, once Shariah finance becomes acceptable, there is nothing to prevent future features of Shariah from working itself into our laws.
Britain already has sharia finance and banking. It is not something the USA wants... but it will almost certainly succeed because American politicians - like European ones - are egotistical and friven by greed rather than morality.
Sharian finance is yet another reason for Muslims to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims and supports their deliberate efforts to avoid integration into society. I have heard Muslims talk about keeping their money out of "kaffir banks".
Many, probably most, Muslims deliberately dress differently, eat differently, behave differently, and see themselves as a community outside mainstream society. Sharia helps Muslims construct and justify their differences from everyone else - which encourages their victim-mentality and refusal to integrate with people who do not think like or agree with them.
Sharia finance is divisive. It empowers Muslims and Islamic culture at the expense of Westerners and western culture. Muslims themselves see sharia finance as a victory against Western decadence - which should tell you something about their mindset.
Britain already has sharia finance and banking. It is not something the USA wants... but it will almost certainly succeed because American politicians - like European ones - are egotistical and friven by greed rather than morality.
Sharian finance is yet another reason for Muslims to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims and supports their deliberate efforts to avoid integration into society. I have heard Muslims talk about keeping their money out of "kaffir banks".
Many, probably most, Muslims deliberately dress differently, eat differently, behave differently, and see themselves as a community outside mainstream society. Sharia helps Muslims construct and justify their differences from everyone else - which encourages their victim-mentality and refusal to integrate with people who do not think like or agree with.
Sharia finance is divisive. It empowers Muslims and Islamic culture at the expense of Westerners and western culture. Muslims themselves see sharia finance as a victory against Western decadence - which should tell you something about their mindset.
Britain already has sharia finance and banking. It is not something the USA wants... but it will almost certainly succeed because American politicians - like European ones - are egotistical and friven by greed rather than morality.
Sharian finance is yet another reason for Muslims to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims and supports their deliberate efforts to avoid integration into society. I have heard Muslims talk about keeping their money out of "kaffir banks".
Many, probably most, Muslims deliberately dress differently, eat differently, behave differently, and see themselves as a community outside mainstream society. Sharia helps Muslims construct and justify their differences from everyone else - which encourages their victim-mentality and refusal to integrate.
Sharia finance is divisive. It empowers Muslims and Islamic culture at the expense of Westerners and western culture. Muslims themselves see sharia finance as a victory against Western decadence - which should tell you something about their mindset.
Monte Gardner: Why is pointing out that Shariah seeks to replace all constitutional and legal systems with itself a scare tactic? Gaffney and Spencer were just stating what Shariah's goals are. And, yes, it's not unconstitutional or illegal to promote Shariah in America, but neither is it unconstitutional or illegal to promote Marxism or fascism in America. So what? Islam, Marxism and fascism are all totalitarian systems which have often used democratic institutions and principles to undermine democracy and thus should be ridiculed and shunned by sensible people. Surely you can see this? Well, maybe you can't.